Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem
The Kaffir Concept of Civilians and Al-Islam:
It should be understood that there is no concept of civilian (or “non-combatant”) in the Deen that is Al-Islam. Instead, it is generally accepted, according to Ulaama, that Al-Islam makes a distinction between those people who have hurma - protection (ismah al-nafs) under Shariah - and those who do not. Those who are protected are Muslims, and those of the kuffar who have a treaty, or covenant, with the Muslims, either general, as in case of Dhimam, or particular, as in the case of Aqd Al Amaan. Those who have the benefit of protection can only be killed if they transgress a limit, or limits, which Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala has set, defined as these are by Shariah. Thus, a Muslim who, for instance, was found guilty in a Sharia Court of zena could be killed.
The asl (rule) is that the kuffar have no protection - and it is not forbidden to harm or kill them - unless they are covered by an exemption, such as Aqd Al Amaan, or unless they become Muslim, or unless they seek sanctuary, for as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“And if anyone of the Mushrikeen seek your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and then escort him to where he can be secure…” 9:6 Interpretation of Meaning
Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimullah) - in one of his writings regarding the Tartars - wrote that one of the primary aims of a Muslim is to defend the Deen against our enemies, and, citing a Hadith [See Footnote 1], he wrote that Jihad against the kuffar would continue until The Last Day. He also wrote, in the Jihad al-Kuffar: Al-Qital al-Fasil part of his Siyasatush-Shariah, about the “glory of Jihad and those who participate in it” stating that it is the best of voluntary deeds: better than Hajj, than Umrah, than voluntary Salat and voluntary shawm. As narrated by Mu’ath Ibn Jabal [2], it was authentically recorded that the Prophet, Muhammad (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:
“The head of this matter is Islam; the central pillar is Salat; and summit is Jihad.”
Furthermore, in Jihad al-Kuffar: Al-Qital al-Fasil ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimullah) mentioned those among the kuffar who, according to the majority opinion, should not be targeted when Jihad is undertaken. These are women, children, the elderly, the blind, and those who are incapable of physically fighting, provided such persons as these do not assist or aid, through words, or deeds, or by giving assistance or encouragement to, those who are physically fighting the Muslims. Note there is no mention of “innocent people” or of “civilians”, and note the important words here: “provided such persons as these do not assist or aid, or give encouragement to…” [3]
Hence, if such people as are mentioned do in some way assist or aid, or give encouragement to our enemies, then they may be targeted. Thus, if they - for instance, a woman, or an elderly person - aid or assist or give encouragement to our enemies, then the protection afforded them by the exemption mentioned by Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimullah) and other Ulaamah no longer applies.
In this respect, let us consider the example of the two servants of Abdullah ibn Khatal (ibn Taymiyyah in Al-Saarim al-Maslool names them) who were commanded to be killed by order of the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and the example of the killing of Duraid ibn Al-Simma. What do these tell us? In respect of Duraid ibn Al-Simma, that those who support, in any way, our enemies, may be killed. In respect of the two servants, that those who incite or encourage or support those who fight against the Muslims can be killed, in the same way that those who insult or demean the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) can be killed. These are relevant examples because Duraid ibn Al-Simma was an old man, and no direct physical threat to Muslims forces, and because the servants were women.
Thus, the relevant question we should ask is: “What constitutes aid, assistance and encouragement, in words and deeds?” This way of reasoning, this type of question, is in accord with Al-Islam: for example, Imam al-Shafi in Kitaab al-Umm writes only about those whom it is not correct to kill, without attributing to them any specific term, and without applying to them an specific concept (such as the kaffir concept of “civilian” and “innocent”). [4]
The question we need not ask, we should not ask - because it is irrelevant, according to our Deen, Al-Islam, and because it reveals the influence of the kuffar - is: “Is it haram to target civilians?”
In addition, some evidences - such as Shahih Muslim 19, 4294 and 19, 4456 - 4457 - are often used by moderates and modernists opposed to, Jihad Operations, and these moderates and modernists take such evidences in the general sense, to apply unreservedly, without restriction, or exemption. This, however, is an error, because they do not consider the specific situations, and other evidences, which do or which might restrict these.
In respect of one such Hadith, ibn Qudamah (Rahimullah) pointed out:
“He (Ahmad ibn Hanbal) said, ‘The Hadith of As-Sa’b came after the forbiddance of killing the women and children, because his forbiddance of killing the women was when he sent (men) to ibn Abi Al-Huqayq.” Al-Mughni Wash-Sharh Al-Kabir (10: 503)
Hence, we return to asking the important and relevant question as to what, exactly, is the aid, assistance or encouragement, which removes the particular exception made - in the case, for example, of women and the elderly - to the general rule of the kuffar having no protection.
According to ibn Hazm (Rahimullah):
“Allah Tabarak wa’tala said: To counter them, use whatever measures you can, including steeds of combat, that you might strike great fear into the enemies of Allah who are your enemies. (8:60 Interpretation of Meaning) Therefore, He made it obligatory for us to terrify them. Thus, anyone who assists them, by supplying them with anything, is not terrifying them - rather, they are assisting them in their insolence and in their disbelief.” Ilam al-Muwaqqin (2:121)
Thus, it is clear that supplying our enemies with anything which benefits them in their invasions and occupations of our lands, in their campaign against the Mujahideen, in their pursuit, imprisonment and torture of our brothers and sisters who support or who aid the Mujahideen, is assisting our enemies, just as it clear that encouraging others - by words or deeds or both - to support our enemies, is assisting our enemies.
Responsibility and Accountability in Democracies:
We should also ask another very important question, which is: Just who is responsible - in what are called Western democracies - for deeds done against our brothers and sisters, deeds done against our Deen? Deeds such as invading and occupying our lands; killing our brothers and sisters; torturing and humiliating them; imprisoning them; insulting our Deen and our beloved Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam).
Let us consider, for example, the case of Charles de Menezes who was shot dead, in public, by those the kuffar accept were acting on behalf of the authority they accept as the basis for their kaffir law and government. According to the kaffir definition, this person was “innocent”, a civilian - and yet who was, and is, according to their criteria, responsible for the killing of this “innocent man”? Who could - and maybe should - according to their criteria, be held accountable for this killing in a criminal kaffir Court of Law?
The answer to this - and similar such questions - is that no one is responsible and no one is or will be held accountable. No one: not the individuals who shot him in the head; not the ones who gave the orders; not the people in charge of those who shot him; not the person who leads the organization that those who shot him belonged to.
In the same way, “no one” - according to the criteria of the kuffar - is responsible for, or can be held accountable for, the killing of our brothers and sisters in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan by the British and Amerikan and allied troops of the Zionist-crusader alliance.
For this is how democracy works, in all the lands of the West, in the whole world. The functionaries, the leaders, the officials, escape any real personal responsibility and accountability for their actions: for the deeds that are done in the name of their government, their country, their people.
There are a few exceptions, of course - but even these are usually only “damage limitation” exercises, as - for example - was the case in Abu Ghraib. Given the public outcry among some sections of the Western public, a few low-ranking soldiers were made public examples of, and given paltry punishments, but no one in the kaffir chain-of-command was deemed responsible or held to be accountable, even though the extent of the abuse, the duration of the abuse, indicated that such abuse had to be known about and had to be sanctioned, in some way, by those in the chain-of-command. Thus, no politician, no civilian or military leader, accepted responsibility. All we had were cowardly excuses, the usual shifting of the blame, and the personal denials of knowing, that are such features of the hypocritical Western system of democracy.
According to this system of democracy, the government, the military, the law-enforcement agencies, and so on, act “on behalf of and in the name of the people” which people, in theory at least, elect the government in some election. Are these - the people - then responsible for what their governments, their military, their law-enforcement agencies do in their name? Are they - or should they be - held accountable?
Thus, who is actually responsible for invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? Bush and Blair alone? The kaffir troops? Their military leaders? The governments? And also those who have, and who do, assist or aid, through words, or deeds, or by giving assistance or encouragement to, those who are physically fighting and killing and imprisoning our brothers and sisters there?
We should also ask: since in a democracy no official or leader is really responsible or accountable for their actions, are the people who elected them, who pay taxes to support such a government, who actively support such a government, responsible and accountable? Or should they be held responsible and accountable?
Consider, for instance, what occurred after the invasion and initial occupation of Iraq by the Zionist-Crusader alliance. There were elections, in both the US and Britain, during which “the public” had the chance the vote for a new government with new policies. What did “the public” do? They re-elected the governments of Bush and Blair and thus gave their support for the continued occupation of our lands and the continued killing of our brothers and sisters in such places. Thus, did they not give assistance or encouragement to those who are physically fighting and killing and imprisoning our brothers and sisters there? Thus, are they not responsible and accountable? And though the names have changed to Obama and Brown has there been any change in the policies of the kuffar governments? No. Even the eloquent pledges used to get them elected are proving to be nothing more than another round of lies and empty campaign promises they are so famous for.
We might - and should - go further and ask other questions such as: who is responsible for, who is to be held accountable for, the deaths of our brothers and sisters in Filistine? The Zionist entity? The Yahud who occupy and reside in Filistine and who support the Zionist occupation army by being part of the military, by paying taxes, by electing a government which continues the occupation of our land and the repression of our brothers and sisters? Or also the British and Amerikan governments (and they, “the people” from whom they derive their authority) who have supported and who do support the Zionist entity - economically, militarily, politically - and whose support created that entity in the first place and is crucial to the survival of this Zionist entity?
The adherents of democracy cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim that a government and its military act “in the name of the people” and derive their authority from the people, and then claim that “the people” have no responsibility and no accountability for what is done in their name. If “the people” of a democracy do not want to be held responsible and accountable for what is done in their name - if they fundamentally do not want to assist, aid or encourage what their government, its military and its law-enforcement agencies do in their name - then they should change, through an election or by some others means, their government and thus its policies and actions. Or, at the very least, they should remove themselves from the lands ruled by such governments and thus directly withdraw their support for such things.

Conclusion:
In summary, it could be claimed, and has been claimed, by many Muslims, that by failing to change their governments and their policies toward the invasion and occupation of our lands - to thus support the enemies of the Muslims - the peoples of the democracies of the West are responsible for and can be held accountable for the things that their governments do in their name.
They can also be considered as in some, or many, ways as assisting or aiding, or giving encouragement to, our enemies, and thus it could be further claimed, and has been claimed, that they are therefore not exempt from being targeted in their own lands, just as the armies and aircraft and mercenaries they and their governments support target our brothers and sisters in the lands those governments have invaded and occupied.
Thus, we should remember what Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala tells us:
“The retribution for a wrong is to inflict the same [upon the wrong-doer].” 42:40 Interpretation of Meaning.
“And when you punish them [your enemy] then do so with the like of that with which you were afflicted by them” 16:126 Interpretation of Meaning.
“If an injury has been inflicted on you, make certain that a similar injury has been inflicted, by you, on the disbelievers: there are good days, and bad days, which We give to each side in turn for thereby We know those who believe and choose from among them witnesses [to the Truth].” 3:140 Interpretation of Meaning
“If anyone attacks you, then retaliate and attack them in the way that they have attacked you.” 2: 194 Interpretation of Meaning
Also, it was authentically recorded by Abu Da’ud that the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “Whoever loves for Allah, hates for Allah, gives for Allah, and withholds for Allah, is correctly striving for the Deen.” [Refer to Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimullah): Al Furqan bayana Awliya ar Rahman wa awliya ash-Shaitan, ch. 2]

May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala protect us from all forms of Al-asabiyyah Al-Jahiliyyah, forgive us for our mistakes, and guide us to and keep us on the Right Path. Wa Allahu Alam.
Notes:
1) See Muslim Book 20 (Kitaab Al-Imaara) Chapter 53, and also Bukhari 9, Book 93, Number 552 and 9, Book 92, Number 414.
2) Refer to Hadith 29 in An-Nawawi’s Forty Ahadith.
3) This important proviso - or condition - regarding encouragement, assistance, aid and incitement, is also mentioned in some standard works of Fiqh, such as Sheikh Salih ibn al-Fawzan’s al-Mulakhass al-fiqhi
4) Refer to Kitaab al-Umm, 4:253,274

Must read everybody, this is a very important topic
JazakaAllah akhi